Madras High CourtCRL OP/10111/2026dismissed

C. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-04-22Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.Sasikumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II, Land Grabbing Cell, Krishnagiri - 635 001.

Crime No.Not Known of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner's anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.Not Known of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ganesh Moorthy For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 1/4

of IPC, in Crime No.Not Known of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he sold the de facto complainant's property by creating a fake Aadhaar and executing a General Power of Attorney, and thereby the de facto complainant's property was sold.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and, hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that unless the petitioner is taken into custody, the involvement of the other accused and the recovery of the money could not be effected.

5. The said contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that 2/4

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to know the accomplisher and, therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to consider the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22.04.2026 cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II, Land Grabbing Cell, Krishnagiri - 635 001.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda 22.04.2026 4/4